Have I said it shouldn't be investigated?So if it IS a big deal then you should want it investigated i take it?
I didnt mean to make you look stupid, but you kind of make it easy.
Why are you asking?So has anyone named a single person that has corroborated Ms Fords story? Any of the people she named as being there? Not even all of them, just asking if there’s anyone at all that has corroborated it.
He likes to ask.
Have I said it shouldn't be investigated?
Why do you ask?Me? I guess sure. It was said earlier that she had a ton of people corroborating her story, I'm just asking for one. She listed several people as being there at the party and yet none of them seem to remember. So name one person who has corroborated her story. Just one.
Once again . . . . 1+1!=97In different words, but yes you implied an investigation was stupid and a waste of time. So yes.
Did you watch him in his opening statement in the hearing? That alone should disqualify him from the court. Also his dodging of questions, etc.
He did kinda spew some right wing conspiracy theory, didn't he? And he didn't comport himself well in any respect. What he showed us was a man too arrogant, entitled & full of himself to be SCOTUS material.
Why are you asking?
I'm very concerned. Has anyone named a single person that has corroborated Bort O'Kavanaugh's account of being a very stable, genius, goody-goody who liked beer but very clearly didn't ever do anything wrong in high school and college because he was too focused on church?
And in this instance we have people close to the accuser saying "I don't know if it happened or not." We also have the accused mounting a defense to which people close to him are saying "Yeah, that's absolutely a lie." In a he/she situation the credibility of both parties play a role. So, who's backing up O'Kavanaugh's credibility?Burden of proof on the accuser my friend (except according to cory booker who said it didn’t matter if he’s guilty or innocent). Someone said earlier in the thread that Ms Ford had a bunch of people corroborating her account, name one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElizLanders/status/1047171789787467776?s=20
@SenFeinstein indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not." "I think the investigation ought to be closely held," she reiterated.
You’re frickin kidding me right?
And in this instance we have people close to the accuser saying "I don't know if it happened or not." We also have the accused mounting a defense to which people close to him are saying "Yeah, that's absolutely a lie." In a he/she situation the credibility of both parties play a role. So, who's backing up O'Kavanaugh's credibility?
Except that 1. This isn't a legal proceeding. And 2.even if it was it would exactly operate like that. When two people disagree and there is no other corroborating evidence either way their credibility becomes a factor. All Bort had to do was not blatantly lie. He chose a different path, which questions every statement he has made on the matter. If no one is willing to say he's truthful then his denial is worthless.Nah that’s not how this works. If the accuser doesn’t have anything at all to corroborate their accusations it’s not incumbent on the accused to defend himself on that. Our judicial system rightfully doesn’t operate that way. Prove a negative or you’re guilty. Frick that
You're leaving out his pattern of lying, and the drinking which he clearly did which makes his denial of an act he might not remember and she does vividly a dicey place to leave things.A pillar of our criminal system is evidence.
There is eye witness testimony from both the alleged assaulter, and the accused, one says yes, one says no, "We believe you" makes all of us feel really good, but it isn't a good way to handle criminal matters or matters such as these where they are impugning a person's character. Basically a he said - she said will stay a stalemate.
Ways for it to not be a stalemate.
All of the above makes me not believe that he committed this sexual assault.
- eye witness testimony from other people - her husband/therapist/friends corroborating her story is hearsay unless they were physically there and witnessed it.
- physical evidence - signs of struggle, signs of sexual intercourse - do not misconstrue that no signs of struggle = no rape, but a sign of struggle is physical evidence - remember, we are working on scales of justice here!
- pattern of behavior - multiple people coming forward with similar stories, establishing an MO for the assaults that from a criminology standpoint means it was likely done by one person.
Maybe you're missing the part where this guy is a white man. That means every courtesy will be extended to him, sir, including the consent of all the white men with power to stop him.Except that 1. This isn't a legal proceeding. And 2.even if it was it would exactly operate like that. When two people disagree and there is no other corroborating evidence either way their credibility becomes a factor. All Bort had to do was not blatantly lie. He chose a different path, which questions every statement he has made on the matter. If no one is willing to say he's truthful then his denial is worthless.
Except that 1. This isn't a legal proceeding. And 2.even if it was it would exactly operate like that. When two people disagree and there is no other corroborating evidence either way their credibility becomes a factor. All Bort had to do was not blatantly lie. He chose a different path, which questions every statement he has made on the matter. If no one is willing to say he's truthful then his denial is worthless.